On the Screen

1) Cavell talks about how he believes television has not come of age yet aesthetically but that movies have because they have been treasured in instances when they run only annually, and are only viewable only in certain places at certain times (196) There are two things that seem misleading here. Is he completely disregarding the fact that classic movies are in fact watched over and over with the ability to rent movies or stream them online? This hardly seems to support his evidence of a movie being evanescent. On that note, is television really all that different then? We can watch them when we want, and the classic ones are usually played the most, often times being the older series that have come of age in the sense that they have won the audience over time. Don't we have this term for 'classic' movies as well as 'classic' television shows that constitutes the same thing?

2) I am somewhat confused about Cavell's definitions of genre on the top of page 200. What does he mean when he says that "the genre undergoes continuous definition or redefinition as new members introduce new points of compensationg"? What is this compensation and who is doing it? Cavell makes it seem like members in the production must diverge in order to be considered any type of genre because it requires this "compensation." Aren't there movies or shows that don't necessarily have conflict in them? To Cavell would these not be considered in a genre? Also, what about movies that we call mixed-genre films or shows? I think the relationship is much more complicated, but it seems that Cavell believes there is a simple definition.